NASDAQ 100 firm Vertex Pharmaceuticals tries reverse domain name hijacking

Firm tried to get domain name from a Pakistani medical firm.

A World Intellectual Property Organization panelist has found that Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:VRTX), a $58 billion (market cap) firm, tried to reverse domain name hijack the domain VertexMedical.com.

The domain name is owned by a Pakistan healthcare firm called Vertex Medical (pvt) Ltd. A quick look at its website shows that it’s an operating business. And a simple Google search pulls up a Dun & Bradstreet record showing that the firm has regarding 100 employees and over $6 million in revenue.

Just knowing this information would make it foolish to file a UDRP against the domain name. While there could be a trademark issue between the firms, this is certainly not a case of cybersquatting that the UDRP was created for.

But Vertex Pharmaceuticals filed a cybersquatting complaint anyway.

Panelist Andrew Lothian unsurprisingly determined that Vertex Pharmaceuticals did not show that the domain was registered and used in bad faith, nor that Vertex Medical lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, Lothian was particularly disturbed that Vertex Pharmaceuticals argued that there’s no reason another medical firm would select the term Vertex for its business. Vertex is the medical term for the top of the head. Lothian wrote:

The nature of the incorrect and misleading submission regarding the use of “vertex” in a medical context coupled with an apparent failure to investigate the Respondent and a failure to put forward documentary evidence which was relied upon in submissions is all the more concerning given that the Complainant is represented by counsel.

Vertex Pharmaceuticals has won 7 previous UDRP cases, so it’s no stranger to the policy. This makes it all the more surprising that it filed this case. Perhaps it thought this would be an easier way to try to get the domain than filing a lawsuit against a firm in Pakistan.

The Complainant was represented by Sunstein LLP, a Boston intellectual property law firm. The Respondent was represented by Cylaw Solutions in India.